Why are handhelds so.......weak?

[Tagrineth]

If I'm on a long 8hour flight, I'll just take extra battery packs.

If I'm flying ~9-10 hours from the States to Europe, I sure as fuck don't want to have to bring (let alone BUY) 3-4 battery packs so I can play all the way. GBA lets me play all the way on one pair of AA's. GBA-SP would let me play all the way there AND ALMOST ALL THE WAY BACK without a recharge.

 

[DemoCoder]

So you'd rather have something with super shitty graphics so that for those rare occassions when you are traveling, your batteries might last the whole way, instead of something with great graphics for the AVERAGE CASE where you will be home almost everyday?

You are suggesting that Nintendo should make some "travel gameboy", but 99.99% of the people are at home every day, so why the hell do they need something that can last for NINE HOURS OF CONTINUOUS PLAY.

I fly frequently on business and my IPAQ can usually survive the 8hour trip, since 100% use on an 8hour trip is pretty dumb.


I'd rather enjoy 3-4 hours of rechargeable daily great graphics than 9 hours of shitty GB or GBA graphics. For years, the Palm zealots were making the same claims about battery life, but guess what, people tend to prefer more functional devices, even if they have to recharge them.

 

[Tagrineth]

OK, now you're becoming somewhat unreasonable here.

GBA games hardly have shitty graphics, they're just... you know... "Not 3D" for the most part. How does that = shitty? Have you played, for example, Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow? (unlike the previous GBA CV's, Aria of Sorrow has fantastic, smoothe animation - something the previous ones lacked, as was brought to our attention some time ago)

Some GBA games have truly fantastic graphics... but of course, you probably consider anything without a Z-buffer to be stone age tech. Right?

 

[Saem]

I don't think 2D = shitty. I don't think 3D = shitty. Being limited to 2D for the most part = shitty. =)

 

[zurich]

I checked out Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow, and was pretty disapointed I really think the GBA could have used a higher res screen, it really shows in games like this. There just aren't enough pixels to go around

 

[Tagrineth]

I checked out Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow, and was pretty disapointed I really think the GBA could have used a higher res screen, it really shows in games like this. There just aren't enough pixels to go around

True, but that's in the interest of A. cost, B. battery life, and C. making GBC/DMG games not look tiny (or like shit, stretched, which they do anyway when stretched on GBA's screen).

 

[DemoCoder]

GBA graphics would have been good around the time the Amiga was around, but now, I expect more.

It's not just the 2D issue (although that's a big thing), but the CPU as well. Personally, I think the XScale + PowerVR MBX platform is going to kill this, especially if it makes its way into tens of millions of cell phones.

 

[V3]

especially if it makes its way into tens of millions of cell phones.

I agree with you, cell phones gaming, is going to be the next big thing in handheld gaming. All the technology is there, all it needs is battery life to support it.

 

[Almasy]

OK, now you're becoming somewhat unreasonable here.

GBA games hardly have shitty graphics, they're just... you know... "Not 3D" for the most part. How does that = shitty? Have you played, for example, Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow? (unlike the previous GBA CV's, Aria of Sorrow has fantastic, smoothe animation - something the previous ones lacked, as was brought to our attention some time ago)

Some GBA games have truly fantastic graphics... but of course, you probably consider anything without a Z-buffer to be stone age tech. Right?

To date there´s still no GBA game that doesn´t look like crap that we have seen better 8 years ago IMHO. The Castlevania games especially suffer because of this, the animation is incredibly crappy and the pixels are just not enough, not to mention that there isn´t enough color on-screen.

Really, Tag, you have to admit GBA was made with the objective of having both super cheap hardware, and a long battery life. Graphics power came as an afterthought, and I´m not really satisfied with games that in many cases don´t even look as good as the SNES ones.

Now that I think about it, many people for the sake of defending Nintendo think 2D graphics stopped at SNES´s level or something of the sort. GGXX is an example of great 2D graphics, GBA is....just a cheap rehash.

 

[Fafalada]

A PSP with 2-3 hours of unrecharged battery life is good enough for me. Should be able to play a full length MPEG4 movie, or 2-3 hours of gaming.

You have got to be kidding. I can get 2 hours of unrecharged battery playtime on a laptop, why the $$$$ would I use a handheld that dies after that?
That's my main problem with laptops to begin with - outside having them as a portable desktop that I can only use when there's a power supply handy, they are more useless then not.
Hell I don't want a palm size machine like that, let alone a gaming one.

Either way, I think market has spoken on this issue before - power hungry handhelds typically never did well (most PocketPCs still last into 10hours, sometimes more).

So you'd rather have something with super shitty graphics so that for those rare occassions when you are traveling, your batteries might last the whole way, instead of something with great graphics for the AVERAGE CASE where you will be home almost everyday?

Frankly, given the size of the screens I can't say graphics is ever a drawing factor on those machines. I know some people go as far as watching movies on PocketPCs but I just see it as an excercise in eye torture.
(Granted you can hook them up to larger displays now but that's already beyond realm of portable use ).
I could say something similar for 3d graphics on those screens for most part (there are exceptions that look nice enough, like GBA V-Rally, but say something like Doom on any pocket machine was just really bad for me).

 

[wazoo]

What !!!

(Granted you can hook them up to larger displays now but that's already beyond realm of portable use ).

How could you consider buying a handheld without a built in VGA connector lol:

 

[Tagrineth]

To date there´s still no GBA game that doesn´t look like crap that we have seen better 8 years ago IMHO. The Castlevania games especially suffer because of this, the animation is incredibly crappy and the pixels are just not enough, not to mention that there isn´t enough color on-screen.

You're so laughably anti-Nintendo... hehehe 8)

GBA has more 2D power than most of the 16-bit consoles. And ISN'T ENOUGH COLOUR ON THE SCREEN?!

Really, Tag, you have to admit GBA was made with the objective of having both super cheap hardware, and a long battery life. Graphics power came as an afterthought, and I´m not really satisfied with games that in many cases don´t even look as good as the SNES ones.

Name some GBA games that look worse than their SNES equivalents, not counting raw screen size (i.e. Zelda: aLttP). Please, enlighten me.

Now that I think about it, many people for the sake of defending Nintendo think 2D graphics stopped at SNES´s level or something of the sort. GGXX is an example of great 2D graphics, GBA is....just a cheap rehash.

Guilty Gear X2 also has the benefit of being on a DVD and having 32MB RAM to stick frames into. You'd be surprised how much raw storage can benefit 2D games, even on weak hardware (take any 2D console, double its main RAM and ROM address range, and voila, you WILL enhance animation quality dramatically, probably without even reducing performance). Just look at what Saturn could pull off with the 4MB RAM cartridge (100% perfect conversion of Street Fighter Zero 3, for one).

 

[Almasy]

You're so laughably anti-Nintendo... hehehe 8)

GBA has more 2D power than most of the 16-bit consoles. And ISN'T ENOUGH COLOUR ON THE SCREEN?!

You know? You remember me of myself when I used to be a Nintendo fan. Funny, I never realized I spent more time waiting and defending the console than having games to play. Eventually, I grew up, and Nintendo didn´t, got a PSX and never looked back. Trust me, I´m not anti-Nintendo, I´m just aware of how terrible and disgusting they´re at handling a monopoly.

Hopefully, if things go as they should, GBA and their successors should dissapoear and Sony will reinvogorate the stagnant handheld market.

In any case, perhaps it´s a matter of the change in gameplay, but the Castlevania games look really drab, and lifeless, unlike the lush, clear colors in both dark and colorfull levels in the SNES Castlevanias.

Mega Man Zero, also lacks in color when compared to his older "cousins".

The animation is also quite poor in both titles in comparison to the SNES ones. Those are the titles I´ve extensively played (along with GS, but since it´s not anything special in terms of animation or graphics, I left it out of the discussion), and trust me, they should look better than SNES titles, but they don´t and in many cases lack something previous titles had.

I´m not saying however that the hardware is inferior, but it should look several times better than SNES games, closer to Saturn.

Name some GBA games that look worse than their SNES equivalents, not counting raw screen size (i.e. Zelda: aLttP). Please, enlighten me.

See above.

Guilty Gear X2 also has the benefit of being on a DVD and having 32MB RAM to stick frames into. You'd be surprised how much raw storage can benefit 2D games, even on weak hardware (take any 2D console, double its main RAM and ROM address range, and voila, you WILL enhance animation quality dramatically, probably without even reducing performance). Just look at what Saturn could pull off with the 4MB RAM cartridge (100% perfect conversion of Street Fighter Zero 3, for one).

That was just an example of how 2D graphics have advanced, now those graphics are something that can pleasantly surprise people instead of the yawn inducing GBA graphics. Been there, done that is something I say every time I look at what it displays on screen.

And you said it, why couldn´t Nintendo add more RAM to its machine? Use bigger carts? Add a variety of effects that would have made people say: "this looks much better than SNES games!"? Because they can get away with it, they don´t need to. That´s why the PSP is such a great thing.

 

[DemoCoder]

You have got to be kidding. I can get 2 hours of unrecharged battery playtime on a laptop, why the $$$$ would I use a handheld that dies after that?

Because no one wants to lug around a laptop all the time, but a game machine that fits into your pocket is a different story. Average cell phone talk time is only 2-3 hours as well. Yet cellphones continue to extend features, not battery life.

That's my main problem with laptops to begin with - outside having them as a portable desktop that I can only use when there's a power supply handy, they are more useless then not.
Hell I don't want a palm size machine like that, let alone a gaming one.

Well, laptops are immensely useful if you have to give frequently presentations. They last long enough when you need them in a meeting or on the road or in a Starbucks. But the fact of the matter is, they are not meant to be carried around like a PDA or cell phone, they are too big. They are meant to be a portable desktop and for corporate users they are extremely useful.

Either way, I think market has spoken on this issue before - power hungry handhelds typically never did well (most PocketPCs still last into 10hours, sometimes more).

Wrong on two counts. Palm's primarily advancement over PDA's that came before it (Newton, MagicCap,et al) was size, cost, and the input system. PocketPC's cost upwards of $500 when they were introduced compared to Palms in the $200 range. Secondly, Palm's marketshare has dropped like a rock and PocketPC's now have 47% of the market as of 2001 which was the last time I saw a marketshare report. In 2000 alone, PocketPC went from 18% to 37% marketshare. This year, $200 XScale PocketPCs were introduced. Palm computing is basically dead.

Palm's so-called amazing battery life was strictly a function of the way the device was used anyway. 95% of the time, it was idle waiting for input. If you played a chess game (as I used to do on long travel) where that little 25Mhz CPU is constantly crunching the next move, the batteries would drain down in about 4 hours.

Most of the people I know who used to have Palms, now have PocketPCs.

Frankly, given the size of the screens I can't say graphics is ever a drawing factor on those machines. I know some people go as far as watching movies on PocketPCs but I just see it as an excercise in eye torture.
(Granted you can hook them up to larger displays now but that's already beyond realm of portable use ).

Maybe for you, but other people seem to like it. The PPC screen is only slightly smaller than the screen you get on the back of your typical airplane seat. Even so, on small screens antialiasing and filtering is even more important.


Want to see an exercise in torture? Look at Nightfire on the GBA. Even bilinear filtering would clean that game up immensively, but 4x FSAA and 8X AF would really improve it on the small screen.

Fact of the matter is, the PDA and Cellphone market is evolving towards ever increasing power, not ever increasing battery life because consumers are buying features, not energy efficiency.

Most americans buy fuel guzzling cars that have to be filled up much more often than a hybrid car. If they didn't care about performance or style, and only how many times they had to recharge, why wouldn't they buy the car that goes the greatest distance and the least amount of hassle?

 

[Fox5]

Hmm.....I was just wondering, with all this talk about 2d, which would perform better(including all tricks, 3d hacks, whatever), the saturn or n64? I never played much of the saturn's 2d games(though I have a 32x with knuckles chaotix, is that close enough?), but they never seemed too impressive, however, I rented mystic makers not too long ago(after initially passing on it for being 2d when the world had gone 3d), and not only was it fun, but I found it really good looking, which also made my sad as that immediately decreased the chance of a gba port to like next to 0. However, it had lots of effects altering sprites, stretching the entire screen, and was just really cool. Of course, even just remembering knuckles chaotix, the 32x probably had the n64 beat on pure 2d(though knuckles chaotix did have framerate problems with some of those special effects), but I can't remember any 2d n64 games. The best examples of 2d games on n64 would be that goemon game, yoshi's story, and mystic makers, but they were all prerendered, and using 3d for stuff....I think the n64 had one 2d shooter that was really crappy, though. I almost thought about getting it, except it was so bland. Oh, and I think a few 2d japanese games, but they were probably the same as most 2d games of late, prerendered with 3d effects, really only fighting games still stay anything close to pure 2d.

 

[Tagrineth]

You know? You remember me of myself when I used to be a Nintendo fan. Funny, I never realized I spent more time waiting and defending the console than having games to play. Eventually, I grew up, and Nintendo didn´t, got a PSX and never looked back. Trust me, I´m not anti-Nintendo, I´m just aware of how terrible and disgusting they´re at handling a monopoly.

Hopefully, if things go as they should, GBA and their successors should dissapoear and Sony will reinvogorate the stagnant handheld market.

First you say you aren't anti-Nintendo, then you immediately say "GBA and their successors should disappear". WTF.

In any case, perhaps it´s a matter of the change in gameplay, but the Castlevania games look really drab, and lifeless, unlike the lush, clear colors in both dark and colorfull levels in the SNES Castlevanias.

Super Castlevania IV didn't have that much colour, and Castlevania: Dracula X was a laughably over-colourful attempt at living up to the great backgrounds of the TurboDuo's Dracula X: Rondo of Blood (also on a CD, thus allowing a LOT more frames to be stored).

And have you played CV: Harmony of Dissonance for GBA? It's pretty colourful, though without being oversaturated like CVX on SNES.

Mega Man Zero, also lacks in color when compared to his older "cousins".

Not really. MMZero's "lack of colour" could also have to do with the fact that the game's mood is pretty dreary overall, too, considering you're on a resistance force that's kinda in pretty dire straits.

The animation is also quite poor in both titles in comparison to the SNES ones. Those are the titles I´ve extensively played (along with GS, but since it´s not anything special in terms of animation or graphics, I left it out of the discussion), and trust me, they should look better than SNES titles, but they don´t and in many cases lack something previous titles had.

Aria of Sorrow's animation is excellent.

Zelda:aLttP looks identical.

Megaman & Bass (which used PSX-level animations via compression) looks identical on the GBA to its big brother on the SNES.

I´m not saying however that the hardware is inferior, but it should look several times better than SNES games, closer to Saturn.

Most GBA games use a ROM address space ~2x the standard on SNES (4MB -> 8MB). But the two consoles have the same amount of RAM. And Saturn has four times the RAM. (512kb -> 2MB) And that's before you consider Saturn's RAM cartridges.

Name some GBA games that look worse than their SNES equivalents, not counting raw screen size (i.e. Zelda: aLttP). Please, enlighten me.

See above.

See above.

And you said it, why couldn´t Nintendo add more RAM to its machine? Use bigger carts? Add a variety of effects that would have made people say: "this looks much better than SNES games!"? Because they can get away with it, they don´t need to. That´s why the PSP is such a great thing.

They couldn't use much bigger carts yet because the dense mask ROM's are getting pretty expensive at the current sizes (~16MB). Matrix ROM, once it's available, should alleviate that pretty well.

And DRAM draws a lot of power. Always has, always will...

And if you use SRAM... you instead have to worry about it taking up a lot of physical space.

 

[Blade]

Heh, trying to reason with the unreasonable. Futile, but keep going.. it's fun to watch.

 

[Tagrineth]

Heh, trying to reason with the unreasonable. Futile, but keep going.. it's fun to watch.

You know, you're right. Makes me think of my lowest bias guage. ^_^ I think I'm just going to call it quits, because my entire argument is pretty much up now, and I'm going away for a while anyway. ^_^; Won't be back for ~48 hours. Whee!

 

[marconelly!]

All I know is that I can't stand looking at those tiny screens for more than 3-4 hours anyways (and that goes for the *highest quality* of those screens) So, being able to continuously play for 15 hours really means nothing to me.

Palm computing is basically dead.

Oh, they are alive and well. Palm still has the biggest marketshare and is selling better compared to PPC devices. Hardcore fans of PPC devices have been singing about Palm's death for years now, and it's just not happening.

 

[PC-Engine]

I think the PSP wil have a hard time competing with PPCs in the coming years on a technical level. PPC can do more than the PSP, getting cheaper smaller lighter better. It's only a matter of time until we see low power GPUs like PowerVR MBX in PPCs. PSP will be stuck between GBX and PPCs.